P 1 : KsF
0521551331 c 01 -p 2 CUNY 160 /Joannides 052155 133 1 January 11 , 2007 10 : 5
CATALOGUE 39 WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY AUTOGRAPH SHEETS 205the conclusion that it represents a simplified and more
plastic variant of it, designed after Michelangelo had dis-
covered for himself the sculptural effect of pure archi-
tecture in thericettoof the Laurentian Library, a project
that, of course, also influenced his design of the columnar
tombs of the popes planned for the choir of San Lorenzo
in15 2 6.Ifthis interpretation is correct, it strongly suggests
that shortly after153 0Michelangelo re-planned the Mag-
nifici tombs with a reduced figural complement and more
emphatically plastic architecture. Like the projects for the
papal tombs in the choir of San Lorenzo, by which this
new design was strongly influenced, it became the proto-
type for a large number of later tombs. However, it must
be admitted that some of the drawings on this page do
seem to represent free developments of Michelangelo’s
ideas. It is hard to believe that a plan of the complexity
of H and J could ever have seriously been intended for
construction.
In a letter of15 4 6to Cosimo I keeping him up to date
with Tribolo’s efforts to set the New Sacristy in order, Pier
Francesco Riccio mentions, in connection with what is
certainly the Magnifici Tomb, “li marmori e le colonne
lavorati in maggior parte” (Aschoff, 1967 ,p. 136 ), but he
does not provide further details or indicate how many
columns were involved.
The verso, uncovered only in 1953 , is, as de Tolnay first
pointed out, a sketch for the ceiling of the reading room
in the Laurentian Library. Although quickly and roughly
drawn, it shows a structure close to that of the ceiling
as executed, which was further prepared in a careful red-
chalk drawing in Casa Buonarroti (CB 126 A/B 91 /Corpus
542 ; 374 × 210 mm). Execution of the woodwork of the
ceiling seems to have been anticipated only in later 1533
and probably did not commence before Michelangelo left
Florence for good in late 1534 .Onfirst publication, the
present sketch was dated to15 2 4;itand the Casa Buonar-
roti drawing are now generally dated to15 2 6. But it would
be highly unusual for Michelangelo to have retained the
same design more or less unaltered for some six years. The
situation is not entirely clear, but from correspondence
between Michelangelo and his patron Clement VII, it
would seem that as late as April15 2 6,itwas still planned
to articulate the reading room with three corridors, one
in the centre, and one at either side, with two banks of
benches between them. There is no indication that the
final scheme, in which the benches are butted against
the walls, with a single wide corridor in the centre of
the room, had then been determined, and it seems more
likely that this was finalised only after153 0. Thus, both
sides of the present sheet would have been drawn at about
the same time, that of the revival of Medicean works thattook place after the city returned to the family’s rule in
August153 0.History
Casa Buonarroti; Jean-Baptiste Wicar; Samuel Wood-
burn; Sir Thomas Lawrence (L. 2445 ); Samuel Wood-
burn.References
Woodburn,184 2,no. 70 (“Sheet of architectural studies –
of doors, windows etc.”). Woodburn,184 6,no. 13 (As
184 2.). Robinson,187 0,no. 40 (Michel Angelo: sketches
for the tombs of the Medici princes, c.15 2 0.). Black, 1875 ,
p. 214 ,no. 37. Gotti, 1875 , II, p. 229 .Berenson, 1903 ,no.
15 6 6(“The one with a large statue in the middle niche,
and a smaller one lower down at the side [A], may possibly
have been for the Tomb of Lorenzo the Magnificent, the
larger statue representing the Madonna.”). Baum, 1908 ,
p. 1115 (Recto: most important drawing is [B], which
follows BM W 28 verso. Followed by the school draw-
ings in the Louvre, Inv. 686 recto/J 24 /Corpus 193 and
Inv. 837 recto/J 26 /Corpus 194 .). Thode, 1908 ,I,p. 455 ;
II, p. 218 (A–D for a double tomb at a moment when
Michelangelo considered two facing double tombs; [E–
G] and [I–K], perhaps for a reliquary chamber in San
Silvestro.). K. Frey, 1909 – 11 ,p. 143 (Michelangelo; for
Medici Chapel; criticism of Thode’s view.). Thode, 1913 ,
no. 423 (Admits error of 1908 ; all for the Magnifici
Tomb, following BM W 28 /Corpus18 9 and preceding
Louvre Inv. 686 /J 24 / Corpus 193 .). Popp, 1922 p. 131
(Not Michelangelo, but by an inferior artist aware of the
architecture of the Laurenziana.). Fasolo, 1927 ,pp. 445
([B] is a design for a double tomb – reconstructed graph-
ically by Fasolo in his fig. 27 –tobeplaced in the
New Sacristy in response to the Pope’s request that the
scheme be changed to accommodate three double tombs
(one each for the Magnifici, the Dukes, and the Medici
Popes). This double tomb was generated from ideas for
a single tomb [A], reconstructed graphically by Fasolo in
his fig. 26. Close relation of architectural composition
to the contemporary forms of the Laurentian Library.
Developed further in BM W 39 recto/Corpus 192 , and
Casa Buonarroti 128 A/B 95 /Corpus 279 .). Popp, 1927 ,
p. 405 (Not by Michelangelo; weak imitation of his
papal tomb projects for the choir of San Lorenzo; the
same applies to BM 28 /Corpus18 9.). Berenson, 1938 ,
no.15 6 6(As 1903 .). H. W. Frey, 1951 ,pp. 68 – 70 (Recto:
Michelangelo, studies for the double tomb in the entrance
wall of the New Sacristy. The angular sarcophagi take
up ideas from BM [W 28 verso/Corpus18 9]. The side
bays of [A] widened from those of [B] to produce a